Review Of Oil Spill State Of Knowledge For The Beaufort Sea And Identification Of Key Issues

sponsored by Environmental Studies Research Funds

Envision – Planning Solutions Inc. Emergency Management, Planning & Training Specialists

Oil Spill Behaviour & Modeling in Ice

State of Spill Behaviour Knowledge in 1990- Good understanding of behaviour of oil from blowout in landfast ice

• Result of large research programs in 1970s and 80s

- Beginning to understand oil behaviour in pack and drift ice- Several Beaufort crude oils subjected to spill-related physical property analysis

• Using early test protocols

Oil Spill Behaviour & Modeling in IceR&D on Spill Behaviour since 1990

– Focus on spill behaviour in Pack Ice• SINTEF Barents Sea Experimental spill in 1993• Outdoor flume tests of oil weathering in broken ice on

Svalbard• Fate and behaviour of slicks in pack ice one

component of large-scale field experiments in 2009 as part of Joint Industry Program on Oil Spill Contingency for Arctic and Ice-covered Waters by SINTEF

• Small-scale experiments in Canada and US to collect data on how oil properties affect spreading and weathering of crude spilled in ice typical of 1st-year landfast ice

Oil Spill Behaviour & Modeling in Ice

Summary of Advances in the last 20 Years– Much has been learned about spill behaviour in pack ice, but not

everything is known.– More detailed information is available about spill processes in

landfast ice conditions, particularly on how oil properties affect spill behaviour.

– Only two models of oil spill behaviour that have some capability to incorporate ice conditions are available commercially.

– Biggest knowledge gap in modeling is in forecasting ice movement, next is coupling oil behaviour to ice forecasting models.

Technology for Spill Surveillance and Long-term Monitoring

Detection and Monitoring

• Airborne and Space borne Systems

• Surface-based systems • Tracking and long-term

monitoring • Promising future

technologies

Developing Technologies - NMR

• ExxonMobil working with Russian institute to move from proof of concept to field trials

• Detection derived from the different relaxation rates of magnetic moments of nuclei in water and oil - x3 difference

• Signals from ice and snow not detected – avoiding interference problems

• One issue is that the size of the circular antennae needs to be about = to the measurement depth. This means that oil trapped at 2 m would require a 5 diaantennae with the helicopter at only 3 m altitude.

Nedwed et al. 2008

Developing Technologies - AUV

Autosub AUV used in the NE Greenland Sea to map the underside of ice floes with sonar (Wadhams et al. 2006)

AUV sonar deployment would buildOn the successful testing with acousticsto detect oil under ice in the 1980’s –Imperial and Env. Canada (Fingas and Goodman)

Highly detailed 3D sonar map of the ice underside1-2 m resolution, part of a 23 km survey x 100m

SINTEF JIP - P.J. Brandvik

Trained dogs tested in sniffing oil from km+

Closing points • Traditional technique for locating oil trapped under ice still

manual drilling – slow, labour intensive, and dangerous.

• GPR - only operational moving remote sensor to positively detect oil trapped underneath, within or on top of level ice -Limitations: warm or melting ice and deformed ice – rubble or ridging – operator training.

• Existing airborne sensors – e.g. UV/IR, LLTV, FLIR, SLAR likely to perform fairly well in very open drift ice (1-3/10). In heavier ice, capabilities mostly unknown.

• Visible and UV sensors severely limited by darkness. IR sensors by cloud cover and fog – all serious drawbacks.

• No airborne or space sensors can detect small patches of oil contained within drifting pack ice with darkness and cloud.

More closing points

• Latest generation of SAR satellites can resolve targets close to 1 m in darkness and cloud but ability to “see” oil in ice probably limited to very open pack conditions. Greatest value lies in the ability to provide very highly detailed images of ice conditions around the spill for marine operational planning.

• For oil trapped under rough ice rubble, rafting and ridging in offshore pack ice there is no proven sensor available now or on the near-term planning horizon (5 years) that can operate in this complex environment. Dogs could be used on large floes where helicopter landings are possible and GPR may be capable of detecting isolated thick oil pools.

• Proven GPS ice-tracking beacons available for close to real-time monitoring of ice movements. General assumption that the oil moves directly with the ice -valid only in close pack ice 7/10 and up. No real advance in oil/ice trajectory models past 20 years.

• Ideal system (always a mix of sensors) could determine whether oil is present, and map the boundaries of contamination over large areas – this is a major challenge but we have made advances in the past five years after very little progress since the 80’s

Containment and Recovery

• Generally regarded as the preferred response strategy, when applicable

• Limitations for large spills, in Arctic and temperate locations

• Discussed here for open-water case and shoulder seasons when more ice present

C&R circa 1990

Barge-based containment/recovery/disposal

Limits for effective operation

• General rule-of-thumb ca. 1990: C&R applicable up to 30% ice cover, reduced effectiveness above 10% ice cover

• Field tests in Alaska in 1999 set the limit at “trace ice”

• Ice disrupted containment too frequently to allow effective operation beyond trace ice

Oil-in-ice skimmers

Oil-in-ice skimmers

Applicability to Beaufort ice

• Little research on skimming among large floes

• Some research on:– Ice deflection– Ice containment– Air bubblers– Currents

Summary

• Open-water systems available• Skimmers available for spills in ice• Best suited to small ice pieces, spills that

cover a small area• Low encounter and recovery rates

In Situ Burning

State of In Situ Burning in 1990– In situ burning technology for major (Tier 3) spills

in the Beaufort Sea described in the BSSC report on responding to a worst-case blowout

– In situ burning was planned for two spill situations:

• Secondary response to a blowout in open water conditions

• Primary response to blowouts in ice conditions.

In Situ Burning

R&D on ISB Technology since 1990– Considerable R&D went into refining fire boom technology

and developing new fire resistant and fire proof boom designs for improved durability and handling

– Several key technology advancements were made, including:

• Fire resistant, water-cooled booms that employ water pumped through a porous outer fabric layer to protect the underlying floatation and membrane components

• Smaller, lighter weight stainless steel fire proof boom that is designed to be used as a fire proof pocket in a “U” configuration with arms of conventional and/or fire resistant boom.

– As a direct result of the fire boom development efforts, two fire boom test protocols were developed, and eventually adopted by ASTM

In Situ Burning

R&D on ISB Technology since 1990– A multi-year joint industry project was initiated in 2004 to

study oil-herding chemicals as an alternative to booms for thickening slicks in drift ice conditions for in situ burning

– Results have been very encouraging• Lab tests followed by tank tests at CRREL, Ohmsett, Prudhoe

Bay• Field tested at a large scale in 2008 as part of JIP on Oil Spill

Contingency for Arctic and Ice-covered Waters organized by SINTEF in Norway

– Using fire-resistant booms to conduct burns in light ice conditions was also field tested in subsequent phase of JIP program, in 2009.

In Situ Burning

Developments in Decision-making since 1990– The smoke plume emitted by a burning oil slick on

water is the main ISB concern– NIST, NOAA and Environment Canada have

developed models to predict downwind smoke concentrations.

– NIST has also developed a simple technique for roughly estimating the maximum distance downwind for the concentration of soot in ISB smoke plumes to dilute and disperse below a given concentration

In Situ Burning

Summary of Advances in the last 20 Years– Better understanding of ISB capabilities and limitations

on water, ice and snow– Better technology:

• Igniters• Fire booms• Models for smoke plume• Herders to overcome limitations of fire booms in drift ice

– Better decision-making tools and guidelines– Despite having been a world leader in R&D and

technology for ISB, Canada trails significantly in developing procedures to implement ISB as an oil spill response option in the Beaufort region

Dispersants

• How well do they work?• Is an operation feasible?• Will they do any environmental

good?• Regulatory Controls

Dispersants

• Will Dispersants Work? (How well do they work?)– Effectiveness in Cold Water?– - misconception about cold– - in fact: – - oil viscosity rule 2000 cP and 20,000 cP– - cold important only for “high pour point” oils– Presence of Ice?– Brackish Water Influence? – Oil-Mineral Aggregates (OMA)?

Dispersants

• Will Dispersants Work? (How well do they work?)– Effectiveness in Cold Water?– Presence of Ice?– - partial ice cover– - complete ice cover– Brackish Water Influence? – Oil-Mineral Aggregates (OMA)?

Dispersants

Will they do any environmental good?- Protect birds at cost to fish - Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA)- - predicts/compares impacts of spill using different countermeasures- - approach accepted, widely used- - generally favours dispersant use- - in SBS toxicity and resource spatial data are adequate-- The first NEBA system was developed for SBS 1988-- Note- JIP-Evaluate Effects of Dispersed Oil on Cold Water Environments Of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Shell Global Solutions and API

•Trade-off

Dispersants

• Regulatory Controls/Consultation- 1984 Guidelines still in effect- Impact of new related legislation (e.g.SARA)- Other planning activity in Canada (e.g., ESRF dispersant workshop, St John’s NL)

Reviews and Research RecommendationsSummary

– Most common R&D recommended is:• Detecting and tracking oil in ice-covered waters• Fate and behaviour of oil in ice• Modeling oil spills in ice• Improve mechanical recovery systems• Field test in situ burning, including using herders• Dispersant use in Arctic waters and ice

– Other key recommendations are:• NEBA analysis for alternative countermeasures• Approvals process for alternative countermeasures• Involve indigenous people and local communities• Public education• Training• Field testing of techniques with oil and overall response• Use Response Gap Analysis (NB scenario-based response effectiveness analysis

used in BSSC Worst Case Scenario process since 1990)

Oil Spill Contingency Planning Issues in the Canadian Beaufort

Background

• More than 200 wells drilled in the Mackenzie-Beaufort Basin from 1958 to 1991

• Includes 83 in the Beaufort Sea• Significant quantities of both oil and gas in

onshore and offshore locations, but no production development to date

Beaufort Sea Steering Committee

• Series of task forces that included government, industry, and Inuvialuit

• Reports published in 1991, including:• Definition and Costing of a Worst-Case Scenario• Remedial and Mitigative Measures• Compensation and Financial Responsibility• Operating Seasons• Contingency Plan Testing and Inuvialuit

Involvement

Key Contingency Planning Issues

• Response capability commensurate with associated spill probability and consequences

• No prescriptive standards

Key Contingency Planning Issues

• Lack of infrastructure• Equipment delivery• Personnel support• Waste handling• Offshore locations remote from other

responders: limited pooling of resources• Arctic environment limits response options

“Broken” Ice Conditions• 0 to 3 tenths

– Oil spread and movement not affected much by ice– Use open-water techniques (C&R, fire-resistant booms,

etc.) in trace ice (<1/10th): at 1 to 3 tenths tend to accumulate brash ice and small floes rapidly

• 3 to 6-7 tenths– Oil spread slowed by ice pieces – Difficult to maneuver booms – Herders, uncontained burning of thick slicks

• 6-7 to 9+ tenths– Floes touching, oil contained, thick slicks easy to burn

• Dispersants

Workshop – Summary of Key Issues

Approval for In-situ Burning• Considered to be a primary countermeasure• No guidelines in place at present• Previous research closer to shore in landfast ice:

Need to address “deep water” issues

Workshop – Summary of Key Issues

Approval for Dispersant-Use• Considered to be a primary countermeasure• Regulations on use unclear• Considerable pre-planning and consultations

required

Workshop – Summary of Key Issues

Availability of Regional and National Resources• CCG has depots in the North• Other national resources difficult to transport• Alaskan resources may be available, with caveats• Canadian RO resources: transport issues,

legislative requirements

Workshop – Summary of Key Issues

Need for Experimental Spills• Basis of good knowledge from 70s/80s• Several promising technologies & techniques need

large-scale validation• Few major experimental spills in North America

in past 20 years

Workshop – Summary of Key Issues

Other issues• Clarify various regulatory roles• Much lower infrastructure planned (vs. Tuk in the

70’s/80s)• Reformulation of Beaufort Sea Cooperative• General research need re: proposed drilling

locations• Renewed communications program on new

developments